Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Seeking Alpha and Tesla: Fair or FUD?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I am currently a "bear" on Tesla stock, and some of Musk's decisions. I for one just began writing articles on Tesla but began commenting on the stock back last year when the SCTY merger was announced. Yes, I am one of those awful SA contributors. Not all of my articles get published. SA editors are tough as nails to get through. Every article must have solid factual information referenced in the article to back up my conclusions, not always easy to do. There are certainly no "golden boys" at SA.

Readers on this forum need to understand that being bearish on the stock does not automatically equate to a bearish position on the company itself. I personally like the Model S, and may be inclined to pick up a lease return once the facelift models start coming back in. But as I repeat in my articles, I feel the stock is WAY above a reasonable valuation. My articles focus on reasons and issues I think are overlooked by investors that lead me to believe the stock is overvalued. Does everyone agree? Of course not. But that is what makes a market and SA prove themselves daily to be willing to print both sides (or more) of every story). Tesla owners need to be willing to listen to both sides as well especially for those of you who also own the stock.

ValueAnalyst, who some of you have been attacking in this thread, is one of the last perma-bulls on SA. If anything you should be supporting him in his efforts to defend Tesla. But, IMHO he is facing a losing battle. Wall Street is increasingly bearish on Tesla. Tesla's failure to execute on an admittedly much simpler car is troubling to many investors. Which could prove to be a good thing for Tesla car owners. I for one, am predicting a BK reorg that would cleanse the balance sheet and make it simpler for Tesla to raise new capital and grow from here. (think a snake shedding its old skin). If owners got a revitalized manufacturer, that could only lead to better new models, more charging locations, and growth of service facilities. What would be wrong with that?

Look at the bolded part of your comment. On one hand, you ask us to consider both side of the story; on the other hand, you are asking us to defend a bullish author. Which one? Make up your mind!

If you haven't figured it out already, there are a lot of very successful investors and traders in this forum. We didn't get to where we are now by being cheerleaders or naysayers.
 
@Value Analyst

Maybe the list below helps you (and those not familiar with SA) to get some more perspective on how 'balanced' SA is by expanding the list.
The statements of articles of an author regularly containing misinformation is of course just my personal humble opinion.

Strong negative headlines & articles :

Bill Maurer 210 articles on Tesla (out of 1884) all negative, with many containing misinformation
Anton Wahlman 124 Tesla articles (out of 234). All negative. Many contain misinformation
EnerTuition 110 articles (!) on Tesla (out of 345). 100% strong negative (with lots of misinformation)
Paulo Santos 110 articles, all negative. Many contain misinformation
Montana Skeptic 89 articles out of 89. all very negative on Tesla, many contain misinformation. Also 7543 (!!) comments, all on Tesla.
Orange Peel 69 on Tesla, all negative. Many contain misinformation
Mark Hibben 68 (out of 678) Mostly negative
Alberto Zaragoza 23 on Tesla (out of 27) All strong negative.
Donn Bailey 20 articles on tesla (out of 21) All very negative, with several including misinformation
Logical Thought (Mark B.Spiegel) 18 articles, on Tesla (ourt of 55). All very negative, ... misinformation
Bill Cunningham 14 on Tesla (out of 14) All negative
Zoltan Ban 15 articles on Tesla (out of 277) , all negfative
John Petersson 100% negative articles, Count unknown (as many seem deleted)
Tales From The Future 3 articles on Tesla (out of 13) All negative.
Kwan-Chen Ma 5 on Tesla (out of 39) All negative.

And I did not look further back.. So that will be adding up to close to 900 (!!) articles by writers with a strong negative bias towards Tesla / TSLA. A pretty steady stream. And my of those (IMHO) many contain proven misinformation, that at least some kept using after being proven wrong.

Both positive & Negative :
Galileo Russel
Max greve
Feria Investor 7 articles

Mainly positive articles :
- Dalasid 51 (!!) articles on Tesla. Note: only a single one in 2017. Several articles rejected. Those I did read on his own site were much better researched content than most Tesla articles I can find on on S.A.
- Randy Carlson 45 articles on Tesla, out of 47. Note: only 3 in 2017.
- ValueAnalyst 33 articles in Tesla (out of 68)
- Trent Eady 17 on tesla (out of 23)
- Alex Cho 14 on Tesla out of 679)
Edit: - ValueSeeker 11 articles on Tesla (out of 11). Last one in Feb 2014.

It is very clear there is a very strong negative overall bias in the Tesla/TSLA articles & headlines as published on SA.

One also has to take in consideration that over these years the Tesla Share Price went up from 17 to 380. So virtually all these negative articles were giving potential investors reading them most of the time a bad advise.
Hmmm, and that for a website that promises to be an Investor Forum ??

There are a few authors that are able to get positive articles published on S.A, but of these 'big' three, two seem to have given up in 2017. My personal guess would be that this is because to many of their articles got rejected (Dalalsid seems to confirm that).

Edit: I can also very well understand that some serious authors are 'not so enthusiastic' to be published next to articles & headlines like Anton Wahlman's most recent masterpiece.
Having said that, ValueAnalyst please note I applaud your effort !

Links to the articles by Dalasid, Randy and ValueAnalyst:
Siddharth Dalal's Articles | Seeking Alpha
Randy Carlson's Articles | Seeking Alpha
ValueAnalyst's Articles | Seeking Alpha

Found one more:
Valueseeker's Articles | Seeking Alpha

Gerard F

You are looking at the trees and missing the overall forest. Writers choosing Tesla as a subject are having a tougher time finding positive information because at these lofty levels there is little if any justification for the share price. That is why you see a declining amount of articles you see as "positive". There is no negative SA bias towards Tesla. In fact, I have accused SA editors on a couple of occasions of just the opposite.

Why don't you write an article for all of us about all of this misinformation you seem to believe writers and editors are pushing to the investment public? Making accusations is easy. You will find backing them up with facts is much more difficult.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: neroden and Gerardf
Look at the bolded part of your comment. On one hand, you ask us to consider both side of the story; on the other hand, you are asking us to defend a bullish author. Which one? Make up your mind!

If you haven't figured it out already, there are a lot of very successful investors and traders in this forum. We didn't get to where we are now by being cheerleaders or naysayers.

I did not bold any part of my comment. I think you are reading the comment I was responding to.
 
It seems illogical to believe that what happens concerning Tesla on SA somehow doesn't happen concerning any other company or topic blogged about on SA. That just doesn't make any sense when you understand human behavior.

It's also illogical to think you know statistics or trends or percentages or any measure of 10,000 contributors on SA unless you've actually sampled the majority of those 10,000. Have you? Or are you just guessing based on a handful you've paid attention to?

Probably a good sized portion of bloggers are as you suggest, I'll give you that. What constitutes/defines that portion is up for debate if and until far more in depth research is done.

But a site like SA that nurtures, supports and encourages (yes, it quite obviously does and has done so for YEARS) the atrocious poo flinging behavior that happens in regards to Tesla is a site that dollars to doughnuts (it's a bet I'd take all day long, every day) nurtures, supports and encourages that same behavior in regards to other companies and topics. Tesla isn't a 'one off' on SA no matter how strongly you argue it. I didn't, nor did others who have followed SA and participated for years, fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

Like the general media that have proved time and time again to be lazy (at best) to downright viscous liars (at worst), anything coming out of SA - positive/supportive or negative/critical of one's own position/beliefs - needs to be taken with a grain of salt and thoroughly fact checked and researched independently. And then forgotten because there will never be a Jeopardy trivia question ever asked about anything SA related.

Tesla is an anomaly. In my 40+ years of stock market investing I have never seen a bubble stock like Tesla. I believed it was already overvalued last year at $190. So, of course, I still believe so today. We all know Tesla lost somewhere between $400-500M in Q3. We will find out for sure in 11 days. God forbid, it gets to breakeven because the stock would surely tank at that point with a P/E of 300 or more when compared to AAPL @ 17 and GM @ 7.

From the stats I have seen most contributors on SA do not write much. In my case, even being semi-retired, I can barely eek out 8-10 articles a month if the material presents itself. Some of my early articles in June and July were based on months of research I had already been gathering for use in my personal stock and option selections.

Those that do write much more often seem to have SA "Marketplace" subscription services so they need to write lots of content. Some have staffs of marketing people and ghostwriters. Personally, I write when I find something I think is interesting enough to make an article. Lately, that has been how China's activity relates to Tesla and GM's futures in the EV marketplace.

I cannot speak for anyone else in those 10,000 contributors, but I have never been approached to write anything for or against Tesla for payment, nor would I. I have been asked by other writers outside SA for my opinions, none of which were paid. SA pays $35 plus $.01 per reader, which is enough to pay for one or two of the nice dinners I take my girlfriend out for each week. I doubt very much anyone writes for SA for the money, except for the 150 or so writers that have Marketplace services.
 
This thread just got interesting now, didn't it...

From your writing I can tell which author you are, and thanks for stopping by. You and I seem to be at the opposite ends of the Tesla spectrum; and as you said, that's what makes a market.

I write, because I enjoy writing, and I believe it makes me a better investor. About half of my articles have been on companies other than Tesla, especially lately, so I wouldn't quite classify myself as a perma-bull or a cheerleader, but I can understand why some would think so. I simply believe in Tesla's future, it is my largest investment, and I estimate that the stock is deeply undervalued by market participants. I've also indicated before that I have a price in mind at which I would sell all of my shares.

In any case, it seems that you and I seem to be on the same page regarding Seeking Alpha. Thank you for confirming my belief that "perma-bears" are likely as frustrated by article rejections as "perma-bulls." I actually think Seeking Alpha is a great platform that allows retail investors to share their ideas, as misinformed as some may be, and the platform is continuously improving. On the other hand, I also understand the reality that a few bad apples will inevitably try to use such a wide-reaching platform to further their agendas.

I hope that you and I can change that in the future by setting an example of mutual respect, and I look forward to continued competition ;)
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Out4aDuck
This thread just got interesting now, didn't it...

From your writing I can tell which author you are, and thanks for stopping by. You and I seem to be at the opposite ends of the Tesla spectrum; and as you said, that's what makes a market.

I write, because I enjoy writing, and I believe it makes me a better investor. About half of my articles have been on companies other than Tesla, especially lately, so I wouldn't quite classify myself as a perma-bull or a cheerleader, but I can understand why some would think so. I simply believe in Tesla's future, it is my largest investment, and I estimate that the stock is deeply undervalued by market participants. I've also indicated before that I have a price in mind at which I would sell all of my shares.

In any case, it seems that you and I seem to be on the same page regarding Seeking Alpha. Thank you for confirming my belief that "perma-bears" are likely as frustrated by article rejections as "perma-bulls." I actually think Seeking Alpha is a great platform that allows retail investors to share their ideas, as misinformed as some may be, and the platform is continuously improving. On the other hand, I also understand the reality that a few bad apples will inevitably try to use such a wide-reaching platform to further their agendas.

I hope that you and I can change that in the future by setting an example of mutual respect, and I look forward to continued competition ;)

What is interesting is that posters here are just as opinionated as the comments you and I get on SA. I must admit I sometimes wonder if the commentors are the ones being paid. LOL. But I have noticed a steady decline in bull articles, with some writers moving to the "dark" side, and others no longer writing. I actually PM'd two that are still on SA but no longer writing. Both said they moved on to other work and no longer had the time to write. Honestly, I think they just ran out of material or were not making enough money to make it worthwhile. One was very strong on SCTY and solar and had to face the huge SP drop before the merger.

You and I are equally determined in our view of where Tesla's stock price is headed. We just happen to have opposing views. I honestly believe Tesla would be better off going through a reorg to rid itself of all of the debt and excess baggage of current shareholders.

But aside from that as we have discussed before, I see China as a growing threat not only to Tesla but to every other automaker. They know their ICE technology is sub-par but see EVs as a way to leapfrog ahead of the global competition. Their ability to dictate what their citizens buy could tilt the scales against the western competition.

To the other comments on this thread about misinformation. BULL.

I have only had one point in one article challenged to SA by a reader. I responded to a call from the SA managing editor by emailing my back up and updating my article to clarify my position on the topic by citing the links. Since then, I am much more careful to document my stated facts with the necessary back-up. I have had at least a half dozen articles rejected. One for not giving Tesla adequate time to respond (they never did). Another half dozen had to be re-written several times before publication. SA is much stricter on publishing than any other publication/site I know of. FYI: Forbes for one, does no review at all for spelling, grammar, or content. So SA writers or investors need to be very careful in using articles from some of these sources of information. I only do when I can cross-reference the information from a second source.

Look I know a lot of you guys in here may not like to hear negative information. But suck it up. SA is about the stock market. Not a fanboy site for Tesla owners. If any of you actually have facts in evidence to dispute any author's piece, challenge the article. SA will be better for it. No one should take any article at face value. Verify every link and seek out your own sources of information. That is what smart investors do. Unless you have the resources of the Warren Buffett's you are always going to be at a disadvantage, but that does not mean you cannot be profitable over the long run.

I write for SA and others because I like writing and I am an active investor. As opposed to many others, ValueAnalyst, Montana, and I all have real money positions long or short. That is conviction. We do not take pot shots from the sidelines like many of our anonymous commentors. I actually wrote one positive article recently on Tesla and got crucified in comments which I just ignored. If I see something good I am just as apt to write about it as something I see that is a problem. Long term, I still see Tesla headed for a downward spiral and eventual crash. If I ever see enough evidence to change my mind you can believe I will.

For those of you who believe all of the gung-ho Wall Street analysts, good luck with that. They were all gung-ho about Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, and the overall real estate market in early 2008 too. Look where that took investors.
 
Last edited:
What is interesting is that posters here are just as opinionated as the comments you and I get on SA. I must admit I sometimes wonder if the commentors are the ones being paid. LOL. But I have noticed a steady decline in bull articles, with some writers moving to the "dark" side, and others no longer writing. I actually PM'd two that are still on SA but no longer writing. Both said they moved on to other work and no longer had the time to write. Honestly, I think they just ran out of material or were not making enough money to make it worthwhile. One was very strong on SCTY and solar and had to face the huge SP drop before the merger.

You and I are equally determined in our view of where Tesla's stock price is headed. We just happen to have opposing views. I honestly believe Tesla would be better off going through a reorg to rid itself of all of the debt and excess baggage of current shareholders.

But aside from that as we have discussed before, I see China as a growing threat not only to Tesla but to every other automaker. They know their ICE technology is sub-par but see EVs as a way to leapfrog ahead of the global competition. Their ability to dictate what their citizens buy could tilt the scales against the western competition.

To the other comments on this thread about misinformation. BULL.

I have only had one point in one article challenged to SA by a reader. I responded to a call from the SA managing editor by emailing my back up and updating my article to clarify my position on the topic by citing the links. Since then, I am much more careful to document my stated facts with the necessary back-up. I have had at least a half dozen articles rejected. One for not giving Tesla adequate time to respond (they never did). Another half dozen had to be re-written several times before publication. SA is much stricter on publishing than any other publication/site I know of. FYI: Forbes for one, does no review at all for spelling, grammar, or content. So SA writers or investors need to be very careful in using articles from some of these sources of information. I only do when I can cross-reference the information from a second source.

Look I know a lot of you guys in here may not like to hear negative information. But suck it up. SA is about the stock market. Not a fanboy site for Tesla owners. If any of you actually have facts in evidence to dispute any author's piece, challenge the article. SA will be better for it. No one should take any article at face value. Verify every link and seek out your own sources of information. That is what smart investors do. Unless you have the resources of the Warren Buffett's you are always going to be at a disadvantage, but that does not mean you cannot be profitable over the long run.

I write for SA and others because I like writing and I am an active investor. As opposed to many others, ValueAnalyst, Montana, and I all have real money positions long or short. That is conviction. We do not take pot shots from the sidelines like many of our anonymous commentors. I actually wrote one positive article recently on Tesla and got crucified in comments which I just ignored. If I see something good I am just as apt to write about it as something I see that is a problem. Long term, I still see Tesla headed for a downward spiral and eventual crash. If I ever see enough evidence to change my mind you can believe I will.

For those of you who believe all of the gung-ho Wall Street analysts, good luck with that. They were all gung-ho about Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, and the overall real estate market in early 2008 too. Look where that took investors.
Somehow I get the feeling that @beachbum77 = @ValueAnalyst o_O
 
Somehow I get the feeling that @beachbum77 = @ValueAnalyst o_O

I was expecting someone to say this, but I wonder if @AudubonB (or another moderator) can somehow confirm that this isn't the case.

What is interesting is that posters here are just as opinionated as the comments you and I get on SA. I must admit I sometimes wonder if the commentors are the ones being paid. LOL. But I have noticed a steady decline in bull articles, with some writers moving to the "dark" side, and others no longer writing. I actually PM'd two that are still on SA but no longer writing. Both said they moved on to other work and no longer had the time to write. Honestly, I think they just ran out of material or were not making enough money to make it worthwhile. One was very strong on SCTY and solar and had to face the huge SP drop before the merger.

You and I are equally determined in our view of where Tesla's stock price is headed. We just happen to have opposing views. I honestly believe Tesla would be better off going through a reorg to rid itself of all of the debt and excess baggage of current shareholders.

But aside from that as we have discussed before, I see China as a growing threat not only to Tesla but to every other automaker. They know their ICE technology is sub-par but see EVs as a way to leapfrog ahead of the global competition. Their ability to dictate what their citizens buy could tilt the scales against the western competition.

To the other comments on this thread about misinformation. BULL.

I have only had one point in one article challenged to SA by a reader. I responded to a call from the SA managing editor by emailing my back up and updating my article to clarify my position on the topic by citing the links. Since then, I am much more careful to document my stated facts with the necessary back-up. I have had at least a half dozen articles rejected. One for not giving Tesla adequate time to respond (they never did). Another half dozen had to be re-written several times before publication. SA is much stricter on publishing than any other publication/site I know of. FYI: Forbes for one, does no review at all for spelling, grammar, or content. So SA writers or investors need to be very careful in using articles from some of these sources of information. I only do when I can cross-reference the information from a second source.

Look I know a lot of you guys in here may not like to hear negative information. But suck it up. SA is about the stock market. Not a fanboy site for Tesla owners. If any of you actually have facts in evidence to dispute any author's piece, challenge the article. SA will be better for it. No one should take any article at face value. Verify every link and seek out your own sources of information. That is what smart investors do. Unless you have the resources of the Warren Buffett's you are always going to be at a disadvantage, but that does not mean you cannot be profitable over the long run.

I write for SA and others because I like writing and I am an active investor. As opposed to many others, ValueAnalyst, Montana, and I all have real money positions long or short. That is conviction. We do not take pot shots from the sidelines like many of our anonymous commentors. I actually wrote one positive article recently on Tesla and got crucified in comments which I just ignored. If I see something good I am just as apt to write about it as something I see that is a problem. Long term, I still see Tesla headed for a downward spiral and eventual crash. If I ever see enough evidence to change my mind you can believe I will.

For those of you who believe all of the gung-ho Wall Street analysts, good luck with that. They were all gung-ho about Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, and the overall real estate market in early 2008 too. Look where that took investors.

Our experiences/thoughts on SA are so similar that even I'm questioning if you and I are the same person :)
 
Last edited:
Tesla is an anomaly. In my 40+ years of stock market investing I have never seen a bubble stock like Tesla. I believed it was already overvalued last year at $190. So, of course, I still believe so today. We all know Tesla lost somewhere between $400-500M in Q3. We will find out for sure in 11 days. God forbid, it gets to breakeven because the stock would surely tank at that point with a P/E of 300 or more when compared to AAPL @ 17 and GM @ 7.

Based on your writing and previous statements, I know that you have heavy industry experience, but the sentence I bolded above tells me that you may not have much finance/accounting experience and experience with investing in growth companies. Am I at least somewhat right?
 
Last edited:
What's going on at Seeking Alpha is that a short list of "favored" article writers are allowed to get away with stuff which other article writers are not. These "favored" article writers include Anton Wahlmann, who has a history of securities fraud charges, and Montana Skeptic, who is hiding his identity probably for nefarious reasons. Both of them have written large numbers of easily verifiable lies; "Montana" has violated all of the "tone" requirements which are supposedly enforced at Seeking Alpha; and despite being reported repeatedly, they are allowed to continue defrauding readers.

Presumably because they get a lot of clicks.

This is a classic, and very nasty, form of corruption where the "favored boys" are allowed to get away with massive policy violations which nobody else can get away with. Traditionally "favored boys" are allowed to get away with sexual harassment and graft, but in this case it's dishonesty, libel, and fraud.

The rest of Seeking Alpha has perfectly decent articles on many stocks. Even on Tesla, if you avoid these "favored boys", you can find reasonable articles (Alex Cho is fine) -- but the management has given some sort of shield to the "favored boys". I consider this reprehensible on the part of Seeking Alpha management, and this *non-neutral* behavior exposes Seeking Alpha management to direct legal liability from anyone who was misled by the fraudulent articles from the "favored boys".

That's what's going on as far as I can tell.
 
What's going on at Seeking Alpha is that a short list of "favored" article writers are allowed to get away with stuff which other article writers are not. These "favored" article writers include Anton Wahlmann, who has a history of securities fraud charges, and Montana Skeptic, who is hiding his identity probably for nefarious reasons. Both of them have written large numbers of easily verifiable lies; "Montana" has violated all of the "tone" requirements which are supposedly enforced at Seeking Alpha; and despite being reported repeatedly, they are allowed to continue defrauding readers.

Presumably because they get a lot of clicks.

This is a classic, and very nasty, form of corruption where the "favored boys" are allowed to get away with massive policy violations which nobody else can get away with. Traditionally "favored boys" are allowed to get away with sexual harassment and graft, but in this case it's dishonesty, libel, and fraud.

The rest of Seeking Alpha has perfectly decent articles on many stocks. Even on Tesla, if you avoid these "favored boys", you can find reasonable articles (Alex Cho is fine) -- but the management has given some sort of shield to the "favored boys". I consider this reprehensible on the part of Seeking Alpha management, and this *non-neutral* behavior exposes Seeking Alpha management to direct legal liability from anyone who was misled by the fraudulent articles from the "favored boys".

That's what's going on as far as I can tell.

I'm glad that your position now acknowledges "the rest of Seeking Alpha."

I agree that a few bad apples with ulterior motives, and I agree that this is reprehensible. You can also google articles about how at least one Seeking Alpha contributor was offered payment to write positive articles on another company. Having said that, however, I'm not sure what Seeking Alpha can do about this risk without being blatantly partial.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: imherkimer
@beachbum77 (briefly) told us who he was. Are there no detectives in the audience? He's short via long dated puts and believes Tesla should have a new CEO whose first duty, after stopping the cash bleed, should be to increase the amount of legroom in the backseat of a Model S. ;)

I commend him for coming over here for a bit of banter and to see what folks outside the SA bubble are talking about.

The problem with Seeking Alpha is that it's an echo chamber for otherwise legitimate shorts. (And, yes, the opposite could be said of here.) But, SA is a toxic stew of disparate haters who've temporarily aligned under a common enemy. If you sit quietly for even a short period of time you can easily identify everyone's angle: the energy guys (oil & gas), other Big Auto employees, proponents of alternate technologies, angry BMW/Volvo superiorists, fired former Tesla employees, and even a well-spoken anti-Elon rocket scientist.

Which is why I've said that I feel bad for the actual financial shorts who've been sucked into this vortex of hate.

To note: the two guys on SA with the most posts against Tesla, approaching 30,000 each, have no position in the stock! One is a fuel cell guy tilting against the BEV windmills, and the other a European bicyclist who takes public transportation and decries American greed and fake Silicon Valley "greenwashing". In fact, @beachbum77 briefly tangled with the latter during one of the latter's anti-American outbursts. Being against something is a delicate allegiance -- an Evil League of Evil under a temporary truce.

Tesla's not just a company, it's also an idea. And when you stand against an idea, you do it forever. It's in the contract.

- Montana's car detective friend has been on the Tesla deathwatch since 2008, and spends his days searching the web for negative Tesla news, tweeting by the minute.

- Everyone's favorite hedge fund friend from New York tweets 24/7 about Tesla and links his CNBC appearances, not his hedge fund.

- Another anti-Tesla non-investor appeared on SA and posted once every 30 minutes for a month and a half.

- Anti-Tesla posters with 30,000 posts and no financial stake ...

- The whompy wheels guy, constantly filing fake reports (and recently banned from Twitter)

Be for something. It's much more rewarding and requires far less time. :)
 
<snap>
Why don't you write an article for all of us about all of this misinformation you seem to believe writers and editors are pushing to the investment public? Making accusations is easy. You will find backing them up with facts is much more difficult.

I think the reason you see less bullish Tesla articles on SA has absolutely nothing to do with authors running out of positive material. I seriously doubt you believe that yourself.
(And the shareprice is decided by the market and does not need to be defended by anyone).

Many pages on many forums and websites are filled daily with positive Tesla developments.

As Neroden very well stated, SA uses very different standards for certain authors. SA does it allow articles of very low quality by these authors, that are full of clear lies and personal biased assumptions presented over and over as facts. I can imagine some writers do not want to be published among those articles. Should I be a professional writer, I would definetly not like to be mentioned or seen with A. Wahlman who has a history of dishonest investment advises and refuses to answer any questions commenters have on his articles.

I am also aware of quality articles that were positive about Tesla and rejected. IIRC dalalsid has some experience there.

You are very naive if you think someone can write an article to address the misinformation in the Tesla articles by these writers and get such an article published. Even comments proving lies by some authors with references to the supporting facts get deleted.

P.S. I am sure you have no reason not share the name you use to publish and comment on SA here, so we can read, fact-check and comment on your articles here. There is a unique level of Tesla knowledge on this forum, it can only increase the quality of your SA articles.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JRP3
Based on your writing and previous statements, I know that you have heavy industry experience, but the sentence I bolded above tells me that you may not have much finance/accounting experience and experience with investing in growth companies. Am I at least somewhat right?
You could not be more wrong. I was a corporate CFO for years before buying my own company. And for the record, I am NOT Value Analyst.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: Out4aDuck
I think the reason you see less bullish Tesla articles on SA has absolutely nothing to do with authors running out of positive material. I seriously doubt you believe that yourself.
(And the shareprice is decided by the market and does not need to be defended by anyone).

Many pages on many forums and websites are filled daily with positive Tesla developments.

As Neroden very well stated, SA uses very different standards for certain authors. SA does it allow articles of very low quality by these authors, that are full of clear lies and personal biased assumptions presented over and over as facts. I can imagine some writers do not want to be published among those articles. Should I be a professional writer, I would definetly not like to be mentioned or seen with A. Wahlman who has a history of dishonest investment advises and refuses to answer any questions commenters have on his articles.

I am also aware of quality articles that were positive about Tesla and rejected. IIRC dalalsid has some experience there.

You are very naive if you think someone can write an article to address the misinformation in the Tesla articles by these writers and get such an article published. Even comments proving lies by some authors with references to the supporting facts get deleted.

P.S. I am sure you have no reason not share the name you use to publish and comment on SA here, so we can read, fact-check and comment on your articles here. There is a unique level of Tesla knowledge on this forum, it can only increase the quality of your SA articles.
I meant an article you could post right here for the rest of us to read. Just give us five examples of what you consider "mis-information"
 
You could not be more wrong. I was a corporate CFO for years before buying my own company. And for the record, I am NOT Value Analyst.

So please help me understand why you don't see any operating leverage in Tesla's future. The massive investments the company made in R&D and SG&A will bear fruits in the coming quarters as Model 3 and Model Y production ramps and revenue multiplies. The company doesn't need to hire any more engineers or corporate executives to manufacture an exponentially rising number of Model 3's and Model Y's. As an ex-CFO, I would think this would be fairly easy to conclude.
 
I meant an article you could post right here for the rest of us to read. Just give us five examples of what you consider "mis-information"

Finding five examples will not be hard, so many lies, personal attacks on Elon Musk and personal biased assumptions presented as facts (certainly counts as misinformation) in articles on SA.

But why should I spend my time on that ?
Maybe you can share under what name you write / comment on SA. There surely is no reason to hide that. Would give me a reference, maybe even encourage me to have a look at your postings there as a starting point.

Edit:
Maybe you can confirm you are Donn Bailey, so I do not give cents to the wrong SA author.
 
Last edited: